. . . . One thing I hope we don't talk about is the term "biblioblogger." There the term is, and we're stuck with it. And I hope we don't discuss "what is a biblioblogger," or the forgery scandal, or minimalism, or the historical Jesus, or what our desks look like, or which character from the Simpsons we are, or such worthy-but-irrelevant topics.

. . . . To put it another way, in terms of magazines: "God blogs" are the "People" magazine of religion and religious studies while "biblioblogs" are the "Expository Times". The people interested in "People" are very likely, if they are of a religious bent, to read the "God-blogs" while the readers of Expository Times (Or JBL or CBQ or ZAW) would more likely be interested in biblioblogs. (By the way, as to which biblioblog is akin to which learned Journal I will leave to the readers decision).

. . . . I do wonder if the 'ideal' of academics connecting with the public is actually being played out (this is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one). For instance, has Paleojudaica or any of the other biblioblogs been 'cited for clarification' in the media? Or has any of the bibliobloggers actually done a poll of its readers?